'The arguments against both AVAs were basically the same. Too many climates
and soils over a too large area, both ignoring the marine influence issue.

'I was especially puzzled by the comments of a highly respected Napa vintner, Jack Cakebread. In a comment letter to ATF he said: "Area is not
distinguishable; makes a mockery of all current viticultural areas...would
destroy confidence in the AVA system."

'Jack, I hate to point out that your proud AVA, Napa Valley, is as meaningless as they come. ATF approved everyone who wanted to be in, including people from other valleys (like Chiles and Pope) and they even considered letting Solano County in! It includes very cool Carneros next to the Bay in the south and goes all the way to hot Calistoga. Includes the rich soils of
the valley floor and rocky mountain tops, as well as most of Napa County.
------------------------------------------

In a very fundamental sense, it does not matter whether a specific AVA has any distinguishing characteristics, be they climatic, topographical or soil. Hopefully in 50 years or so certain AVAs will stand out as being particularly special for specific varieties or styles of wine, but you have not made (and should not make) the same mistake as the French and get into dictating what varieties must be grown, the methods of vine-training, pruning, yield etc., none of which can be controlled however large the bureaucracy created to police the system. All that is required is some guarantee of truth, so that if the wine states it is Napa Valley the consumer can be sure that is what it is and where it comes from. It does not matter if it is ridiculous and smaller inner areas are superior. If producers want to establish a superior reputation for a smaller appellation within any existing conglomerated AVA, such as Mount Veeder, then they can, should and indeed have. But if producers want to blend wines from several different states, as Australians are very adept at doing, then why not? You already have the mechanism to apply multi-state appellations and, frankly, what would be the difference ethically from a wine declaring itself to be the product of California, Oregon and Washington and one that claims a hypothetical AVA of, say, West Coast? Both seem honest to me and the market place will eventually sort out the hierarchy of your AVAs by the premium they fetch. And, of course, the smallest "AVA" is a single-vineyard. If that vineyard is within one of the top-ranking AVAs of the future and made by a winery that has established a long tradition of fine winemaking, it will of course fetch the highest premium of all.

I hope your country does not get too precious about what should and should not be an AVA. Don't follow the French, do your own thing and keep your eye on the ball: authenticity. The best way to achieve a high level of authenticity is not via a costly bureaucracy, but by coming down so hard on anyone caught cheating that the culprits are put out of business. Disgruntled employees can be relied upon to spill the beans more than any inspector of a policing agency.

Perhaps I worded badly...I meant that the new AVA's were at least as meaningful as what has come before.

It is the ATF which claims that AVAs should be based on the equivalent of unique "terroir" and then continuously ignores its own policies for political expediency.

Personally, I would have prefered (too late now) a system whereby groups of vintners banded together and made their own rules for their appellations, and to be a member of the group and use their seal or insignia or whatever, would have to agree to play by the rules. But if you wanted to be a lone wolf and plant Zin where everyone else has agreed to plant Cabernet, you could do it sans the seal.

I don't want American vintners to ever lose the ability to experiment with new varieties, nor be restricted as to yields. The marketplace should decide those things.

Back to the newsletter, I was basically sticking the needle in the Napa folks for picking on someone else's appellation for the very weaknesses of its own.

No, I think I must have worded it badly because I understood the dig you were making and was supporting you, in part at least.

I'm a dedicated "terroirist", but where do you begin or stop?

In theory you any rationally-based appellation would end up like the French system, which consists of a general boundary inside which a lacework of approved AOC land exists. Ideally an unclassified site next to a classified site is unclassified because it is unsuitable (usually due to soil). However many unclassified sites with an AOC boundary consist of entire villages whose mayor did not apply for classification. On the other hand, many areas of unsuitable land have been classified because the owner petitioned the authorities stating that as the neighbouring field has been classified, so should his (which if carried to its logical conclusion would end up with a single-vineyard AOC called France).

Even if you applied a rational-based system in the strictest way, that should not prevent a winery from selling wines under a much wider-ranging origin. All that should be required by law (federal in your case) is that any claim is truthful, which is why it doesn't matter that only some AVAs adhere to its original concept.

Potentially the best regional policing system in the world is Australia's self-governing Label Integrity Programme. With all relativiely young systems, there are bound to be teething problems, but I think, on the whole, Australia has got it write. The very nature of the way that international journalists have tackled Australian wine articles, using an increasingly terroirist approach, shows that it is a success, surely. As you stipulated, Tom, policing is money wasted. Self-government is the way forward. As long as the consumer knows exactly what he is buying from what is written in the label, and a healthy show/competition circuit is in place, wines will find their own level on the quality ladder. Rules will always be bent and broken to the consumer's detriment so don't impose any!

Joe, you old sod, haven't you got anything better to do on a Sunday? Obviously I haven't!

Now I get a chance to welcome somebody to the Wine Board.

Joe's a wine buyer for Waitrose, the UK's best supermarket for wine (and, indeed, cheese). Waitrose has a wonderfully eclectic range, is always eager to market interesting wines, whatever the price or origin, even if they have to literally sell the wine. Joe's a great taster, he's studying for his MW and, best of all, he just loves fizz! Welcome Joe.

Not again! Drank a bottle of CH Mise en Cave 1994 with my lady before getting merry and frisky on a couple of other delightful wines (see the 'bargains/steals' bulletin board for details!)
What your book says is spot on, Tom. I personally prefered the intensely leesy palate of the Mise 1992 when they were released, but that 1994 IS a dark horse. A real sipping champers - starting to get vanillary.

One of the earlier posts said,fifty years from now he expects the appellation system to be better or more representative or something like that. I know I haven't quoted exactly but that isn''t important for the point. I believe the opposite will be true. Jerry is certainly correct that BATF SAYS the appellation boundaries are based on soil, climate, etc (everything but political factors) while actually basing their decisions more on political boundaries and political pressure than either soil or climate. "Napa Valley" is a good example, including everybody in Napa County who wanted to be included! Even over in Pope Valley, far from the Napa watershed, they call the wines 'Napa Valley.' That area is so much hotter than Carneros that it is difficult to defend having tham in the same AVA. Yet BATF buckled under pressure and took the easy way out. It's because of these types of BATF decisions that I haven't thought that appellations will be meaningful over time.

But there's a newer reason: Some wines (Chardonnay is a good example) are no longer "Grown" in the original European appellation concept of decades and centuries ago. The Chardonnay you buy no longer owes its style, flavor or quality to the terroir, climate or even clone. Today Chardonnay gets its flavor and style from wine production practices (Malo-lactic fermentation, Fermentation in barrels, Sur Lies stirring, oak chips, oak barrel treatment like 'toasting' and others) -- and not from the location of the vineyard at all. I've tasted as many as eight different Chardonnay table wines from various appellations around the world at one judging that couldn't be identified by ANY of the judges because they all tasted alke! All had the same oaky, M-L, Sur Lies, toasty, fat, flabby taste that completely covered up any residual Chardonnay flavor that might originally have come from terroir.

To me, this is likely to get worse, not better because the nature of competition causes many winemakers to copy each other whenever one style becomes "in" and hot in the market. For example, Chardonnay wines used to be dry. Today you almost can't find one that isn't fairly sweet. That has nothing to do with appellation, it's marketing and I believe the Appellation system will eventually just dry up and fade away.

On thinking about it, I really don't know whether that's a bad thing. What do the rest of you think? Dick Peterson

Dick, you're quoting my 50 year reference, but reading what you say, we really are in agreement. My point was that it does not matter what the official appellation system is or, indeed, what amount of internationalising of varietal styles occurs, the market (ie., consumers) will eventually sort out the worth of a wine. Chardonnay is already an appellation, and as your reply aptly illustrates, for those who appreciate the intrinsic quality of wine, the fact that it wine is Chardonnay is no guarantee, and the fact that it is a so-called Napa Valley Chardonnay Chardonnay is also no guarantee. True wine aficionados already seek out where in Napa it comes from and, I believe, even more important, who made it. So you see (I hope), there is no argument amongst us. It is just that all we can expect from any appellation system is an official guarantee that what it says on the label is what you get in the bottle. And the only way to police that is by crippling spot fines, not bureaucracy.

I suppose it is a good idea to know that when a label says the wine came from a particular appellation that it actually did, but if you believe, as you guys do, that the appellation is relatively meaningless, then what is the point at all?

Unless there is a degree of stringency such as acreage limitations or type of grape variety allowed, the appellation is truly meaningless, especially too if producers are free to treat the wine any way they desire to meet market demand.

For example, it seems to me that a hot climate "appellation" in California, or anywhere else, where producers grow Riesling is no appellation at all -- at least not for Riesling.

An appellation is just a name. Nothing more. Unless, of course, some bureacracy or organistation wants to tie it up with a lot of dos and donts. The only point, as far as making any appellation official is to guarantee its integrity. As long as that is done then if any specific appellation eventually stands out as being special for a particular variety or style, then it will achieve a premium, but that's because the market has determined it is worth the extra, not because someone has dictated what variety should be grown. I'm not a lover of cool-climate grapes grown in hot climates, but what right has anyone to tell a grower what he can and cannot grow? And how hot's hot? If someone want to do it and all he makes is crap, then that's his look out, but I've tasted some stunning late-harvest style Riesling from areas that I wouldn't grow that grape, if it were my vineyard, and I'm thankful every time somebody bucks the system to produce something so miraculously outstanding. If a wine style rather than grape variety could be described as cool-climate, then it has to be brut-style fizz, and I not only see people using grapes from areas that are too hot, but going about it all the wrong way, yet the progress made in many of those wines over the last five years has been humbling. We all like to think we know where the best wines are made, what varieties seem to stand out in those areas, and how they should be made, but we should not impose those views, however well-founded they might be, on others. It will just stifle progress and experimentation, as indeed it is doing in France, where former Champagne producer Jean-Louis Denois has been forbidden to grow Gewurztraminer near Limoux because it is a designation in the Alsace appellation. You should learn from the mistakes of France, not try to imitate them.

Tom, to play devil's advocate and hopefully to stimulate conversation that may enlighten myself and others, might the restrictions be based on trial and error over 200+ years? Maybe they tried Varietal X in the Loire, Rhone and Bordeaux regions and found that it only shines in Alsace. No? Why not?

Hi Bucko, I wondered when you'd put your oar in! Trial and error is dynamically linked to the number of people willing to experiment, a willingness to share results with others and to study and learn from those in other regions, not to mention consumer reaction and the means by which growers and winemakers receive any feedback. It is true that the bordelais have benefitted from more than 200 years of trial and error, but with a multiplicity of wine columns, television, radio and the internet, not to mention a vast infrastructure of retail outlets, appellation in the current era will register themselves one way or the other over a much smaller timescale. I mentioned 20 years off the top of my head; it could be 10 or 30. The point, however, is not to allow the reputations gained and lost through trial and error to bog down an appellation by rules and regulations. I have tasted the odd illicit Chardonnay from Bordeaux, but wouldn't it be wonderful if we could taste a Chardonnay from a top Graves cru, a Pinot Noir from Pomerol, a Merlot from the Cote de Beaune, and a Cabernet Sauvignon from the Cote de Nuits?

....wouldn't it be wonderful if we could taste a Chardonnay from a top Graves cru, a Pinot Noir from Pomerol, a Merlot from the Cote de Beaune, and a Cabernet Sauvignon from the Cote de Nuits?
**************
It might be horrid too..... but I do see your point.

As you see my point, I really shouldn't labour it, but as it's you Bucko, I will. When I said wouldn't it be wonderful, wonderful did not (necessarily) apply to the wine, but to the opportunity of being able to see what could be produced by gifted winemakers using the most suitable clones in the best terroirs. I sincerely doubt any of these non-traditional varietals would be horrible; after all, how many times do we see New World wineries claiming to be on the same latitude or of a similar heat-summation as "Bordeaux and Burgundy" lumped together and trumpeted as if their New World vineyards could therefore be expected to grow every classic variety in the book. The only thing that would be horrid would be if, for example, Graves as a whole was replanted with Chardonnay, just as it would be awful if every producer in Champagne and Alsace used new oak. But they all have a right to try, and if the wines produced are not in the same league as the "traditional" style or variety, then that serves to reinforce the reputation of an appellation.

A lot of people seem to forget that the reason why the successful AC's in France ARE so successful is because they are inherently supported by the Growers, not because they are enforced by law.

If the Champagne AC laws were relaxed, would you see any winemakers over there immediately ripping up their Chardonnay/Pinot vines or, come to think of it, changing their wine making practices at all? Of course not.
This would be exactly the same in Bordeaux. Even legally permitted practices such as skin contact (maceration pelliculaire) have taken 20 years to catch on, even though it was invented by a Bordelais! Just because the odd chap might experiment with Syrah of Chardonnay in Bordeaux, it would definitely NOT cause a stampeed if everyone was allowed to.

Don't think that France's appellations work becouse they are enforced by law. They just happen to be. Besides, if French laws were imposed in Italy, we wouldn't have new DOCs like Bolghieri. Now if Sassicaia and Masseto had never existed, that WOULD have been a travesty!

I don't disagree much with your position, and although you argue for appellation as a means for legitimacy, I can't imagine what legitmicay you refer to if you argue against control. Just seems to me that to know where the grape has grown won't mean anything if it is manipulated to make it more suitable to its sometimes hostile environment.

In a way, we are saying the same thing, but differently.

I prefer the appellation system only if growers and producers agree to it, for whatever reason they agree, backed up by reserach and experiment too. But I cannot figure any benefit to an appellation system if it is strictly a marketing tool. I would rather just know who the producer is, how the wine was produced and if the work came to anything worthwhile; the latter will come to me when I taste the wine.

It depends what you mean by an appellation sysatem. In many of the most fundamental ways AVAs do not represent an appellation system, but whether it is an appellation system or not, the worth it comes only when the market - consumers - decide.